[dmaul1114]

You've yet to show how getting rid of copyright moves forward science or the arts.

I work in science--the social sciences anyway. Work is always moving forward, we just have to cite others work. If we want to read research findings in books or journal articles, we have to buy the book, subscribe to the journal or use the library to get copies to read.

For the arts, anyone can read a book and be inspired by it--copyright or not. They can buy a copy, or check one out from the library for free. One can buy an album, or hear songs on the radio to influence their musical skills etc.

The only thing that can't be done is stuff like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies if the person is still alive and doesn't consent to it--which they may, look at all the remixes in the music industry. And I'd hardly call that stymieing creation, since true creation is making something new. Not editing or remixing existing material. That's at best partial creation, and at worst less talented folks trying to cash in on the name recognition of popular works.

Creation isn't stymied by making people pay for works under copyright, or making them get it from the library or hear it on the radio etc. if they somehow can't afford to buy the book or cd etc.

And yes, one buys a copyright with the agreement to let go when it expires. I won't argue that, as that's the whole point. I just think they should remain where they expire at death (or a bit beyond) or not a second sooner.